Clinical Access and Utilization of Reports and Images in Neuroradiology |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, Maryland;2. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;1. University of California, Riverside School of Medicine, Riverside, California;2. Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California;1. Pulmonary and Critical Care, Internal Medicine, and Radiology, West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, Los Angeles, California;2. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California;3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas;1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia;2. Radiation Oncology Service, Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia;3. Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation Program, American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia;4. UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas;5. Sutter Medical Group and Sutter Cancer Centers, Sacramento, California;6. National Radiation Oncology Program, US Veterans Healthcare Administration, Richmond, Virginia |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundThe radiology report serves as the primary means of communication between radiologist and clinician. However, the value clinicians place on imaging and reports is variable, with many images of studies or their reports never being viewed. This has implications on the perceived value of the radiologist in the imaging chain. We hypothesized that neurologists, neurosurgeons, and otolaryngologists would view neuroradiology images most frequently and neuroradiology reports least frequently of all medical specialties.Materials and MethodsOrdering data were collected on all neuroradiology studies over a 1-month period. Imaging study date and time stamps were obtained for (1) when imaging study orders were placed, (2) when the patient underwent the imaging study, (3) when the imaging studies were viewed, and (4) when the radiology reports were accessed and by whom. Each data point included provider names, locations, departments, and level of training.ResultsThere were 7,438 imaging neuroradiology studies ordered. Overall, 85.7% (6,372) of reports and 53.2% (3,956) of imaging studies were viewed and 13.1% (977) of studies had neither images nor reports viewed. Inpatient neurosurgeons and neurologists viewed both imaging and reports significantly more than primary care specialties (P < .001). In the outpatient setting, this trend stayed true for neurosurgeons though was not true for neurologists (P < .001). Outpatient study imaging and reports were both viewed the least (48.6%), and inpatient study reports were viewed the most (95.2%; P < .001).ConclusionViewing of imaging and reports varies with neurosurgeons viewing neuroradiology studies more than all other medical specialties. Overall, the reports were viewed significantly more than the images, suggesting that the radiologist and his or her interpretation are more valuable than the study’s images. The radiologists’ value, as measured by reports viewed, was maximal with obstetricians and gynecologists and psychiatry clinicians. |
| |
| Keywords: | Utilization value-based care value viewing reports viewing imaging |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
